Grex Jellyware Conference

Item 98: The Mac OS X 10.5 - aka Leopard - Item

Entered by remmers on Sun Jan 20 16:34:27 2008:

This is the place to discuss the latest (as of January 2008) version of 
Apple's OS X operating system.
68 responses total.

#1 of 68 by cross on Sun Jan 20 17:16:10 2008:

[There is already an OS X item; why not use that?]


#2 of 68 by remmers on Sun Jan 20 18:43:16 2008:

[Yes, I posted that item; wanted a new one.]


#3 of 68 by nullop on Sun Jan 20 20:41:56 2008:

OS X is derived from unix and hence inherits a lot of the unix gayisms. You
can beautify the crap all you won't, it won't change the fact that at the
core, it is still shit.


#4 of 68 by h0h0h0 on Sun Jan 27 05:04:40 2008:

nihilist



#5 of 68 by ball on Wed Feb 18 18:31:06 2009:

    I'm still running MacOS X 10.4 'Tiger' (on a borrowed
iBook G3).  Mostly I seem to use it as an X terminal, though
I do run Camino locally.  Anything of interest in 'Leopard'?


#6 of 68 by rcurl on Wed Feb 18 21:15:43 2009:

I'm using OS 10.4.11 on a MacBook Pro. The 10.5 install disk came with it,
but I have not installed it: I fear a lot of apps I now use will not run on
it, and I also read about bugs in 10.5. 

(I wish people didn't call OSs by names of animals: there are no similarities
between the name and the OS.)


#7 of 68 by cross on Thu Feb 19 00:55:57 2009:

Tiger comes with several advances; one of the big ones (for me, anyway) is
Timemachine.  I really like automated backups.


#8 of 68 by rcurl on Thu Feb 19 06:46:35 2009:

That's a 10.5 app.


#9 of 68 by veek on Thu Feb 19 11:01:47 2009:

Re #6: heh, I was thinking the exact same thing :) and poor Cheetahs
they kind of suck and are going extinct even..


#10 of 68 by cross on Thu Feb 19 14:41:07 2009:

resp:8 Ooops, my bad.  And this is exactly why you are right and one should
not name operating system releases after big cats.


#11 of 68 by remmers on Fri Feb 20 14:17:32 2009:

I've been running Leopard (10.5) on my MacBook Pro since shortly after
it was released over a year ago.  I will say that it had some rough
edges initially, but after the first couple of updates things got much
better; it's up to 10.5.6 now, runs quite smoothly, and I'm very happy
with it.

New features that I like:

    Time Machine          - automated incremental backups
    Spaces                - multiple desktops

Also, the Spotlight search facility is significantly improved from
Tiger.  Much faster, better functionality.  I use it a lot.

I've not had any problems with 3rd party apps not running.


#12 of 68 by keesan on Fri Feb 20 15:13:42 2009:

I think Jim downgraded from 10.4 to 10.3 to make it run faster.


#13 of 68 by cross on Fri Feb 20 19:19:52 2009:

That's stupid and counterproductive.


#14 of 68 by rcurl on Fri Feb 20 19:45:45 2009:

Wouldn't that depend upon the machine?


#15 of 68 by remmers on Fri Feb 20 19:46:58 2009:

I'd think it would depend on the machine and the uses to which it's put.


#16 of 68 by cross on Sat Feb 21 00:29:15 2009:

I think that opening oneself up to the security problems of an old,
unmaintained version of the software is just plain silly.


#17 of 68 by mickeyd on Sat Feb 21 01:22:20 2009:

re #16 - so you advocate always upgrading to bleeding edge? Or just 'common
stable versions" ? 
 Just curious. 


#18 of 68 by keesan on Sat Feb 21 03:53:12 2009:

What security problems?  The computer came with 10.3 originally but he
upgraded to 10.4 to try to run a later version of iPhoto which he decided he
did not want to run.  This was all taking up too much memory.  We added some
memory and it still ran slow.  He reinstalled, this time without a lot of the
unused junk (such as a driver for every printer ever made - some day he may
print with it and add one driver then).  I asked around about how to get rid
of various stuff (drag to the trash can).  iPhoto installed itself along with
a bunch of other unwanted stuff the first time around.  (Jim does not read
well and missed the 'custom' part of installation).  He is using the Mac only
to play with photos.  If he wants to write an email he asks me to do it, or
look things up online.  There are two places to add memory to the Mac, one of
which requires taking it apart to some depth.  
  We were given a printer with the Mac but it needs the inkwells refilled and
then you need a $20 chipsetter to set them back to thinking they are full.
We might borrow one and try printing some day.  6 cents/photo on State St.
Someone with an ink refill shop asked us to try fixing three desktops and some
laptops he has accumulated, in return for which he would probably reset the
inkwells for us if we wanted.  You can buy empty wells which are set to be
'always full' but then if they run dry you can damage the printhead.


#19 of 68 by cross on Sat Feb 21 07:03:32 2009:

resp:18 Look it up.  The rest is a huge amount of irrelevant detail.


#20 of 68 by veek on Sat Feb 21 10:20:42 2009:

Re #19: don't be grumpy :) arr! <make way, make way, geek chick coming
through :p tackles Sindi and sits on her>

I've never used a Mac.. and I'm kind of not inclined to because of the
cost/laziness involved; Intel 400Mhz 256MB RAM - would a OSX run on
that? Would it be worthwhile using/learning how to use it for someone
like me? Why are Remmers and Rane even using it - free?


#21 of 68 by remmers on Sat Feb 21 16:46:59 2009:

Yeah, cross seems to be in grump mode lately.

I'd be curious, too, to know what security problems one opens oneself up
to on an old Mac that's not connected to the internet, although maybe
this item, which is ostensibly about Leopard, isn't the place to discuss it.

Security issues aside, I think it's kind of cool that folks can make
some use out of old software/hardware.

As to why I use the Mac - well, I buy my Macs, they're not free, so
that's not the reason.  I like Mac's because they're so well engineered
and come with great software.  More detail than that will have to wait
until I'm feeling up to expositing at greater length.  :) 


#22 of 68 by keesan on Sat Feb 21 17:55:58 2009:

The Mac does not crash.  The hardware is also high quality.  OS X lets you
use BSD if you prefer, and even compile programs.

OSX won't run on an Intel that i know of.


#23 of 68 by remmers on Sat Feb 21 18:08:06 2009:

All current Macs use Intel processors.  This has been true for a couple
of years now.

However, it is not easy to get OS X running on a non-Apple Intel machine.

I think what "lets you use BSD" means is that OS X has a BSD variant
(Darwin) built-in; running the Terminal application brings up a Unix
shell (Bash by default).


#24 of 68 by keesan on Sat Feb 21 18:23:52 2009:

This lets you bypass the gui stuff and type commands.  Such as ssh.


#25 of 68 by cross on Sat Feb 21 22:04:32 2009:

I'm not grumpy; I'm just upset that no one has brought food under my
bridge for me to eat lately.


#26 of 68 by ball on Sun Feb 22 13:37:12 2009:

    I use MacOS X because I had a bad experience installing
NetBSD on a 300 MHz iBook G3, so I didn't want to beat my
head against the same procedure on the 900 MHz iBook G3 that
I was loaned.

    MacOS X ships with the important things that I need to
connect to a NetBSD or Linux host and run applications
there: ssh and an X server.  I also run a few X clients
locally on the Mac: xterm, xcalc etc.


#27 of 68 by mary on Sun Feb 22 14:14:31 2009:

No hassles.  No virus problems.  Elegant look and feel.  Works as 
advertised. Four biggies for me. 


#28 of 68 by mary on Sun Feb 22 14:18:30 2009:

Oh, I'm on OS 10.5.6.

I wonder if you don't find common threads between the cars people buy and 
the flavor of their computers.

I know I buy Honda Civics for the same "no hassles - as advertised" 
reasons.


#29 of 68 by cross on Sun Feb 22 16:35:38 2009:

I just don't buy cars.


#30 of 68 by keesan on Sun Feb 22 17:46:58 2009:

Free curbside-find bikes, free small linux on curbside computers.


#31 of 68 by ball on Mon Feb 23 03:09:12 2009:

    Manual gearbox, window winders, locks etc. estate
("station wagon"), carries more than you'd think.  NetBSD
is analagous - everything's manual and it makes an efficient    
work-horse.


#32 of 68 by cross on Mon Feb 23 04:15:40 2009:

Or install real Linux on them and help them out even more.  Fixing people
up with telnet screws them over.


#33 of 68 by keesan on Mon Feb 23 05:02:53 2009:

Linux installed to hard drive has plenty of space for ssh (dbclient) and it
is quite real.  What I use is much faster than the commercial versions.


#34 of 68 by cross on Mon Feb 23 05:24:31 2009:

That's good!


#35 of 68 by keesan on Mon Feb 23 05:37:10 2009:

I got Russian working with links browser (which is graphical with embedded
images but uses console fonts).  And Russian streaming audio.  A 486 would
be perfect for this but we don't have any left.


#36 of 68 by ball on Mon Feb 23 16:03:17 2009:

    I don't have any 486 boxes either, but at least it's
possible to build energy-efficient modern PCs now.  Not sure 
whether any of those are reaching the curbside yet though.


#37 of 68 by nharmon on Mon Feb 23 16:38:07 2009:

humm. I run FreeBSD and drive a Jeep. Okay.


#38 of 68 by nharmon on Mon Feb 23 16:38:49 2009:

...Oh I get it. I like things for which there is a ton of free
documentation on how to modify for my own use. 

:D


#39 of 68 by keesan on Mon Feb 23 20:02:23 2009:

We measured energy use and a 486 beats a 386 or a pentium.  The earliest
pentiums were less energy efficient than slightly later ones.  Faster cpus
use more energy.


#40 of 68 by ball on Tue Feb 24 02:55:50 2009:

    That's not always the case.  Thankfully sanity prevailed
at Intel and even AMD have some modern, fast chips that burn
less power than predecessors.


#41 of 68 by keesan on Tue Feb 24 04:55:48 2009:

Less than a 486?


#42 of 68 by ball on Tue Feb 24 20:16:03 2009:

    Possibly. Have you looked at Intel Atom?  For less than
$120 it's possible to buy a mainboard with an Atom processor
soldered to it and 2 Gbytes of RAM.

    I can see that rescuing curbside 486 machines costs less
and keeps them from the landfill.  RAM and disk capacity
limitations might be a drawback though.

    This being the MacOS X Leopard item, I should probably
mention that one of the Darwin ports (I /think/ only Pure-
Darwin survives) might work on the Atom board.  There are
several non-Darwin desktop BSDs and Linux of course as
alternatives.


#43 of 68 by remmers on Tue Sep 8 22:47:59 2009:

Has anybody else upgraded to Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) yet?  I did,
the day it was released.  Risky move, I know - did it for 10.5 but
ended up going back to 10.4 (Tiger) until certain issues were
resolved.  But advance reviews indicated that Snow Leopard was
largely glitch-free and involved mostly under-the-hood revisions,
not user interface stuff, so I took a chance.

Overall I'm really pleased with Snow Leopard.  It takes up less
disk than Leopard (saved me about 7 GB).  The system boots faster -
just over a minute, instead of the 2-3 minutes that Leopard took.
Applications open and close faster - especially noticeable in the
Mail app.  Time Machine backups are faster.  Although there are no
radical changes to the user interface, there are some nice
enhancements.  For example, the the Airport drop-down menu displays
signal strengths for the networks it can see.  Also, when you open a
dock folder in "grid" view, you can go to subfolders and stay in
grid view (which should have been the case all along, of course).

Snow Leopard runs only on Intel Macs, and so marks the end of Apple
support for the Power PC architecture.

For an exhaustive detailed review of Snow Leopard, see John Siracusa's
writeup in Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars


#44 of 68 by rcurl on Wed Sep 9 05:41:39 2009:

There is a Mac OS X item in micros cf (I mention this because I ask questions
there but noone ever answers them, and I'd like others to hang out there too.)

I've stayed with OS 10.4.11 having heard those bad things about 10.5. But I'd
be a little worried about going to 10.6 because of the possibility of other
apps I have not working in it.


#45 of 68 by remmers on Wed Sep 9 11:30:37 2009:

I'll check out the Micros item.

OS X 10.5 was a bit flaky when it first come out, but that was
a couple of years ago.  There have been several updates, and the
current version is quite solid.  With 10.5, Spotlight works pretty
well, and you also get Time Machine, Apple's great incremental backup
system.  I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to 10.5 at this point.
However, if you have 3rd party software that's important to you,
it's probably wise to check first that it runs under 10.5.


#46 of 68 by nharmon on Wed Sep 9 12:25:24 2009:

Your OS decreased in size and saved you 7GB? Woah.


#47 of 68 by remmers on Wed Sep 9 14:32:00 2009:

Yep, 10.6 uses significantly less disk space than 10.5.  That's the
opposite of the way things usually go with an OS upgrade.

Part of the savings is due to dropping Power PC support.


#48 of 68 by keesan on Wed Sep 9 15:38:28 2009:

How big is 10.6?  


#49 of 68 by cross on Thu Sep 10 13:19:16 2009:

(Way more than will fit onto a 3.5" floppy disk.)


#50 of 68 by remmers on Thu Sep 10 14:14:31 2009:

It comes on a DVD with a capacity of 6.74 GB, of which 6.65 GB is
actually used.  It's hard to tell how that translates to actual
hard disk storage once it's installed, though.  Apple's official
"Technical Requirements" page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html)
specifies 1GB minimum memory and 5GB minimum disk space.


#51 of 68 by other on Sat Sep 12 18:31:13 2009:

I'm still running 10.5 on a machine that came with it.  I've been
holding off on 10.6 until some of the inevitable bugs fixes come out. 
10.6.1 is out now, but I'm still not particularly motivated to implement
the change.

I think that when I do go to 10.6, I'll first wipe my Time Machine drive
and do a Carbon Copy Clone, and then start fresh with Time Machine after
the upgrade.  Aside from the speed, I should save a bunch of disk space
on backups.


#52 of 68 by remmers on Sat Sep 12 23:45:03 2009:

I did a Carbon Copy Clone of my 10.5 before upgrading, but didn't
wipe Time Machine.

Always anxious to be on the cutting edge, I've upgraded to 10.6.1.
No differences that I can notice.


#53 of 68 by keesan on Sun Sep 13 02:22:17 2009:

What is Time Machine?


#54 of 68 by remmers on Sun Sep 13 11:40:43 2009:

Time Machine is an incremental backup system for OS X.  Google
os+x+time+machine for detailed info.


#55 of 68 by keesan on Sun Sep 13 12:38:51 2009:

What do you back up other than personal data?  


#56 of 68 by remmers on Tue Sep 15 12:44:34 2009:

Time Machine backs up the entire system.


#57 of 68 by remmers on Mon Oct 4 13:43:41 2010:

By the way, Snow Leopard is up to 10.6.4 now and extremely stable.

I've been reading David Pogue's excellent book "Mac OS X Snow
Leopard: The Missing Manual".  In spite of the fact that I've been
an OS X user for over six years, I've learned quite a bit from
it.

Keyboard shortcuts in particular.  For instance, you get useful
extra info about your wifi connection if you hold down the 'option'
key when clicking on the Airport icon in the menu bar.  Or notice
what happens when you press 'option' when the Apple dropdown menu
is visible.  Clicking on a application in the dock while holding
down 'option' or 'command' or 'option+command' also has useful
effects.  And there are key combinations for logging off, sleeping,
restarting, or shutting down without confirmation, if you're in
a hurry.

Okay, so I'm a keyboard trivialist.  But I find that keyboard
shortcuts, once they become familiar, can really speed up my work.


#58 of 68 by keesan on Mon Oct 4 15:25:03 2010:

Ctrl-Alt-Del does not seem to work on a Mac.  OS 10.4 Ctrl-F2 down arrow to
shutoff.  Is there some keyboard way to bring up a pseudoterminal?


#59 of 68 by remmers on Thu Oct 7 13:03:48 2010:

No default way that I'm aware of.  If the OS version has Spotlight,
you can probably hit command-space to invoke it, then type "terminal"
followed by return to start the Terminal application.

Once the Terminal application is open, you can select it via
command-tab, then type command-N to open a new terminal window.


#60 of 68 by keesan on Thu Oct 7 16:21:34 2010:

What is Spotlight and how would I know if OS 10.4 has it?  Can I start
a browser the same way?


#61 of 68 by rcurl on Thu Oct 7 20:34:23 2010:

OS 4 has spotlight - a search app. But you can put Terminal and browsers in
the dock, and open them that way. 


#62 of 68 by keesan on Thu Oct 7 23:56:18 2010:

How do you access the 'dock' with the keyboard?  I finally figured out that
Ctrl-F2 gets you the menu and you can arrow down a few times to Shut Down.
How do I access Spotlight with keyboard in the first place?  

Today I had a fight with OS 9.  Can't find any telnet program so I download
Nifty Telnet.  In order to put on OS 10.3 we would have to disassemble the
Bondi Blue G3 233MHz and find two 64MB PC66 SODIMMs.  Anyone have extras? 
I don't want to use up our last two on a giveaway computer.  9.22 works with
iCab 3 or IE 5 and they give up on a lot of javascript.  10.3 will work with
Seamonkey 1.1, Firefox 2, iCab 4.8, Opera 9.  10.3 needs 128MB.


#63 of 68 by rcurl on Fri Oct 8 03:47:52 2010:

There is the Nifty Telnet-SSH client for OS-9.


#64 of 68 by keesan on Fri Oct 8 12:28:54 2010:

That is what I downloaded (see #62).  There is also a free virtual keyboard
for OS 9 (not OS 10, which comes with one that is not as good), and I put it
on a computer given to us with no keyboard, that went to kids for online
games.


#65 of 68 by remmers on Fri Oct 8 12:47:01 2010:

Re resp:62 - "How do you access the 'dock' with the keyboard?"
Try Ctrl-F3.  "How do I access Spotlight with keyboard...?" Cmd-Space.

(The David Pogue book I mentioned above has answers to these
questions and more, although it's specific to Snow Leopard, so
there are a number of things in it that won't work on 10.4.
An earlier edition specific to 10.4 probably exists.)


#66 of 68 by mary on Fri Oct 8 12:55:03 2010:

As of right now the AADL has two copies of Pogue's _Mac OS X, Tiger 
Edition: The Missing Manual_ available at the downtown branch. Here is a 
link:

http://www.aadl.org/catalog/record/1243414

I've found Pogue's books to be a great help.


#67 of 68 by keesan on Fri Oct 8 15:04:45 2010:

I presume I can set up my own keyboard shortcuts somehow, such as Ctrl-F4 to
access a terminal window where I can type in the name of a program.


#68 of 68 by remmers on Thu Oct 14 10:23:07 2010:

Apple is hosting a media event on Wednesday, October 20.  Rumor has
it that it's to announce the next version of OS X (10.7) and that it
will be named "Lion".
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/13/apple-media-event-on-october-20/


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: